In November of 2004 I voted for Ralph Nader, not just because of the Republicans but because of the Democrats.
I get quite frustrated by the Democrats' claims that Nader "spoiled" the 2000 election or that he "siphoned" votes from Gore.
Since when are the Democrats entitled to get my vote?
In addition to this rhetoric, the Democrats also filed one law suit after another to prevent Nader from competing in 2004.
If these really are the people that are running for office on the Democratic side, maybe we'd be better off with a Republican in 2008... then the Dem's will have another 8 years to shape up and act like the people they claim to be.
I get quite frustrated by the Democrats' claims that Nader "spoiled" the 2000 election or that he "siphoned" votes from Gore.
Since when are the Democrats entitled to get my vote?
In addition to this rhetoric, the Democrats also filed one law suit after another to prevent Nader from competing in 2004.
If these really are the people that are running for office on the Democratic side, maybe we'd be better off with a Republican in 2008... then the Dem's will have another 8 years to shape up and act like the people they claim to be.
5 comments:
HUH? I am totally confused by what I just read. Are you saying you would like McCain in '08 to better teach the Dems a lesson? It is factual that if Nader hadn't run we might not have had GWB in office for 8 years. No, noone is entitled to any vote, but I would hate to have another 8 yrs of what we had. I am a little shocked by what I just read. You know I am as liberal as they come, but Nader doesn't stand any chance and to field votes in a direction that would allow this country to head in a bad direction is irresponsible. You know elections are this country's game to be played and there is typically no best option. There is bad and there is better. To allow our country to go right because it can never be left enough for some, is silly logic. That is if we are using logic. I can't believe this came from you.
Thanks for your candid response Jessica. Here are some of my thoughts:
True, if Nader had not run in 2000 we would not have had Bush; however, if Perot didn't run in 1992 and 1996 we would not have had Clinton. I don't think it follows that just because one of the Duopoly parties will lose in the presence of competition, there shouldn't be competition.
My logic goes something like this...
1) I'm a Liberal, and if the Democrats want my vote they have to earn it by behaving like Liberals.
Kerry went to the podium and lectured on global warming and then got in one of his 5 SUVs and drove away. Edwards talks about "two Americas" and he has a28,000 square foot house. Hillary talks about health care and then sells out to the industry.
Is it any wonder the Dem's didn't get elected in 2000 or 2004? They make Nader their scapegoat for their own inabilities and failures. It's their fault they lost; not Nader's for running, or mine for voting for him.
They need to earn votes with their behaviors, not by their associations.
2) Additionally, a big part of the reason Nader "doesn't stand a chance" is because the Dem's have stonewalled him. Put him in a debate with many of them and they will come off looking bad. That's why they don't want him in, it's not because he isn't capable of winning but because he is.
3) Lastly, I would say that Nader knew he wasn't going to win, but he stayed in it to give Liberals someone to vote FOR. A vote for Kerry, was to me, a vote against Bush. Fair enough for many, but I can't vote that way... I just can't. It's the same reason I'll be voting for him again if Hillary gets the nomination.
I agree with some of your reasoning, but - the reason Nader stayed in (I'm paraphrasing, but this is roughly something I heard him say) is because he didn't think there was any real difference between the candidates, so he didn't really care whether he played the spoiler because he didn't care who won.
However, as a liberal, there are some things I would rather not have conceded to W with the 2004 election particularly, most notably two Supreme Court seats.
That being said, it was asinine that the Democratic party basically anointed Kerry after one primary and one caucus, and he should have been able to win against a vulnerable candidate. But I voted for him as I voted for Gore, because he was the best of what were, no matter how you slice it, only two real choices. Would it be nice to see a third party candidate get airtime, participation in the debates, and a real shot at giving Americans a real choice? Sure. But ignoring the realities on election day might leave you with a clear conscience (and it should), but I really doubt it will EVER get you who you want in office. Too many people pay too little attention to the process, and they still show up every four years and vote for numbnuts like W. Such is life.
Also, and this is a non sequiter, but maybe it'd make a good post for later... how is anyone in the party at large talking themselves into Clinton as a candidate? Is it not totally obvious that she's unelectable. I don't have any real animosity towards her, and I think there's a fairly good chance she'd do a decent job, but I don't remember an election in my lifetime (even the ones that were blowouts) where there was such active animosity towards a candidate. I'll go on record now and say that if she gets the nomination, she loses by double figures.
Chris,
You've actually made a couple of points I'll post on soon. Thanks.
Post a Comment